Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Sometimes we know more than we think we know. An about.com article asks if we might already know what happens in The Twilight Princess. If we do, it's not going to be a happy ending. Based primarily on the introduction to The Wind Waker, and the fact that we now know Twilight Princess takes place between Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time, it makes some pretty interesting claims about Link's future. Is Link about to die?" Miyamoto may have been hinting about this earlier this year.

It's not like there's any real continuity of character here. I mean, there's no specific Link character who is in all of the games. I always interpreted Link to be a sort of genetic/time-less hero born again and again. It's basically implied that each one dies at some point after his game ends. So explicitly having him die in game wouldn't really matter that much, since we know there will be another one at some point.
And honestly, I wouldn't be that upset if he died anyway. It's not like there's any personality there.

Agreed, aside from Ocarina and Majora's Mask, there is no continuity, though, in some cases, it is implied. On the other hand... It's always the same, relatively useless, napping Zelda. She doesn't seem to do anything except fire a few arrows here and there. But, even though it's her legend, she spends half the time either sleeping, or not being Zelda.

Unless I'm completely mistaken The Legend of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was supposed to be a direct sequel to the original with the exact same Link from the original. The first time they really went with the whole "multiple Link" concept was A Link to the Past.

I realize that. While being the ancestor of the original Link, it was also the first time that a different Link was ever used: i.e. The Legend of Zelda, The Legend of Zelda: The Adventure of Link (16 year-old original Link), and The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (set some time between the first two games) all contain the same exact person. A Link to the Past is Link's ancestor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are a different Link in what I believe is the oldest time as Gannondorf is still a man and no

Actually, in Zelda 64: Majora's Mask it was HEAVILY implied that it was a direct sequel to Zelda 64:OoT complete with the same Link. Rewatch the ending and imagine Zelda sends Link on a mission to find 'someone' and cue Zelda 64:MM. It fits in perfectly since history was changed yet Link still visits Zelda. And then theres the fact that Epona, the Gorons, Zoras and Dekus race all reappear.

Yeah, there are exceptions (1&2, and OoT&MM), but most of the games are separate- that was my main point.
Although I hadn't RTFA before I posted that, and now that I have I see that the point of the article was a bit more interesting that just having Link die.

They aren't just separate, but in some cases they're specifically different characters in the same world. Link and Zelda from Link the the Past were distant ancestors of the Link and Zelda from the NES games. Before Windwaker came out, I'd seen at least one post on GameFAQs linking to a fan page that tried to establish continuity through the series, and even then, there were at least three and possibly as many as five Links and Zeldas. Since then, Minish Cap would suggest at least one new pair, since (if it

Actually, I was fairly certain that at the time it was made, Ocarina of Time was chronologically first, because it was before Ganondorf became Ganon. The GB & GBA LoZ's are so very much aside from the real games that they could fit literally anywhere in the chronology and not make a bit of difference.

Sometimes I wish Slashdot had an option to turn off (potential) spoilers. I still remember screaming "thanks, you fucker" at the screen when Michael posted the story [slashdot.org] on the front page. I had a similar reaction when the demise of Ken Jennings was announced [slashdot.org] a month and a half before the event took place.

I didn't want to know that Link dies before I played the game. I'd be happy to make the discovery on my own. So next time you want to post a spoiler in a story, at least use the [Read more...] function and give us some warning.

The Zelda games never had a strong connection between games. Each only alluded to each other with hints and details to excite the fanboys (of which I am). This article is taking a giant leap of faith to force the connection it tries to make.

Well, it is a big deal in the sense that we've never seen Link die before (well we've obviously died in a Zelda game before but never... you know what I mean!). If you assume continuity amongst the various games, it's fairly difficult to determine a cohesive timeline of events although the games do provide various hints (such as the intro to SNES's Link to the Past referring to the events of N64's Ocarina of Time). But amongst the different chronologies, some of which can be easily found by googling "zeld

Well there is more than one link, the idea is comming from the backstory to Wind Waker (a VERY VERY VERY underrated game simply cause fanboys couldnt get over fucking graphics which IMHO where badass anyway) Basically the world of Wind Waker you find out IS Hyrule, but a Hyrule that Link failed. At somee point after OoT a Link or a ancestor of his fails to stop Gannon, and the land is flushed of everything evil by the gods themselves, thus the flooded Hyrule.

Wind Waker wasn't underrated because it was made using Macromedia Flash... - obligatory flamebait, check =) - It really looked great, but that's all it had.It was a boring boat sim. I often had time to smoke a full cigarette after doing the teleportation song, the wind song, and aiming at my direction.The ridiculous mini-games that were unbeatable (hit the old guy 500 times, w00t, so *not* boring!)Don't talk about the, what, four different dungeons you visit. Very, very disappointing.It's a big let-down for

I dont know. My meory is kinda fuzzy, but I think Windwaker says merely that Link never appeared. That doesnt mean that he actually did and failed. My opinion is that whatever made a new hero to emerge everytime evil appeared just didnt happened that time...

It would really suck yo know before hand that no matter what you do, at the end, you are going to lose anyways. Why play then?

Hell No. It'd be a wonderful way for Nintendo to run one of their core franchises into the ground. Zelda is all about being the hero, exploring and saving the world. Nintendo will probably change many of the classic Zelda machanics, but there really isn't any way of keeping that same sense of wonder and fight against evil when there are another twenty thousand people in your server trying to do the same thing. Massively multiplayer games are exactl

I deliberately said MMO, not MMORPG. It is hard for me to exactly define how they would implement online play. That's up to the imagineers at Nintendo. But I think there's a good reason for them to do it. As good as Wind Waker was, and it WAS good, it was essentially the same game as Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time. They would be running the franchise into the ground by not innovating and making the same game over and over again. You can also argue Mario Sunshine was the same as Mario 64, which many

"As good as Wind Waker was, and it WAS good, it was essentially the same game as Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time."... "You can also argue Mario Sunshine was the same as Mario 64, which many have"

True as this may be, I enjoyed all the aforementioned games. But this brings up the wider issue of the place of sequels in the gaming industry. By the same reasoning, GTA3, GTA:VC and GTA:SA are all the same game, and it could be argued that there's vastly less variation between them compared with the 3D ittera

I think you mean A Link is going to die. The games loosely exist along the same time line (though I have yet to see a LoZ with hover boards, foo), and each game is a different Link and different Zelda.

I think Zelda II on the NES even went through some thing about all the princesses being named Zelda because one was in a deep neverending sleep, or some such stuff.

In Wind Waker, we're told that the main character isn't even of the Link lineage. He has to search for pieces of his part of the Triforce, remember. The game even says that the hero had left the realm, (referring to Majora's Mask), forcing the Triforce Piece of Courage to split apart.

Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask supposedly have the same Link (Majora's Mask taking place a few years after Link defeats Ganon in OoT and is returned to kid form.)

The Oracle games are supposed to match up with another Zelda game as well, though I can't recall which one right now. The same may be true for Link's Awakening.

So, even if Link does die in the game (which would certainly be a change; whether it's appreciated or not has yet to be seen), it won't be the end of the Zelda franchise.

If he does die, I think we'd see it as more of a "selfless sacrifice" type of thing. Link struggles with the main enemy to subdue him while the supporting hero(ine) blasts him into the Dark World or whatever, but in the process Link is pulled in as well. This would actually be a nice set up to the next game (which is most likely on the Revolution,) where you once again have a non-lineage Link and you wind up having to release the real Link to defeat the evil.

Note: Reading this might spoil the endings for a few of the Zelda games. Read only if you know what happens in each, because I need to draw from important game events to make the timeline. Read at your own risk.

The Legend of Zelda is a series of twelve separate games at the present time. Since these games were not released in an order

And kids, this is why you should stay in school and pay attention in English class. Not because otherwise you'll spend all your time on the internet writing pretentious timelines about video games (I wouldn't take that kind of cheap shot, even if there's some truth to it), but because if you're going to spend all your time on the internet writing pretentious timelines about videogames, you should know how to link a narrative together and how to phrase yourself without sounding like you're a 3rd grader reading a book report.

That's great and all, but I can tell you the reason that is wrong, and it's a simple one.

Ganon has never, not once, ever, held the power of the entire Tri-Force.

Had Ganon ever possessed the entire Tri-Force, Power, Courage & Knowledge, he would have been impossible to defeat. The Tri-Force is literally the ultimate power, with all of it, Link would have had no chance, Master Sword, Four Sword or no. It would not have been possible. Therefore, even in ALttP, Ganon did not possess all 3 parts of th

I found the article very interesting, however there was one thing in it that I found strange...

Didn't The Wind Waker clearly state that after Ocarina of Time, the Hero of Time vanished and Ganon came back?

Is the intro to Wind Waker really about Ocarina of Time? I did not feel that it was "clearly stated", but rather hinted at most. Just because OOT takes place before WW, doesn't mean that there could be more games in between them, so that the hero's return in the intro is actually about Twilight Princ

There are some pretty strong hints in Wind Waker that refer to Ocarina of Time. While they're all named link, since Ocarina of Time, Links have also been given a title. Ocarina and Majora's Mask had the Hero of Time, and Wind Waker has the Hero of Winds. Point is, the Hero of Time *was* explicitly mentioned in the into to Wind Waker.

Also remember the room with the Master Sword in it? The characters in the stained glass windows around the room sure looked awfully familiar....

No, Wind Waker is really about Majora's Mask and (eventually) Twilight Princess. MM doesn't even take in Hyrule (and yes, this means no Zelda, no Triforce, no Ganon), so the intro to Wind Waker saying 'the hero left the land' (or something similiar) is true. And the Hero of Time not returning? Thats because he dies (according to this theory) and thus never returns home to 'save the day' again. Someone casts a 'flood the world' spell to stop Ganon from

...if Nintendo has some grand story already laid out and each game is another episode a la Star Wars. If so, it seems that WW was Nintendo's Return of the Jedi, complete with a 'cartoonish' quality that infuriated some (but not all...I actually liked it).That said, RotJ really was the *end* (yes, the books carried it on a bit further, but I mean that the principal elements of the story had ended) and WW also seems to signal an end; once you take the land away, can you really put it back again? And frankly,

No one who thinks Wind Waker was too cartoonish finished the game, you can bet on that. Not after we get those words of remorse out of *Ganon* of all people, not after what after what happens to Hyrule....

In a way, the cartoon style was a test: IF you're enlightened enough to get over yourself concerning the art style and enjoy it for what it is, THEN you get the most kick-ass ending ever seen in a Zelda game.

I was pretty stunned by it; Hyrule isn't coming back (at least in WW). As soon as I got to the game where you go back to Hyrule, I was wondering what would happen in the game that would bring it all back, and then was stunned to realize it wouldn't. I can't remember a game that really gave a "plot twist" that was both profound and well done.

What if he turned out to actually do something worse than roll over and die? What if instead he allows himself to be corrupted, gathers the Triforce of Power and ressurects Ganondorf, paving the way for Ganondorf's conquest free from any hero's influence?

If a hero appears every time darkness is about to rise up again, having that hero become that darkness would definitly put a kink in things, possibly enough to warrant a world flood?

I'll let you chew on those thoughts with a side of concept art to go with

If the lead character is going to die and the world be destroyed, it should either be at the beginning of the game or the outcome of losing the game. Otherwise, it might make a good story -- but what's the point of a game that you are guaranteed to lose?I haven't played many console games lately, but I have an example from the Might and Magic series on the PC. Might and Magic is a role-playing series, and Heroes of Might and Magic is a turn-based strategy series. The Heroes series created a new setting,

Here's a thought I had -- is it possible that you do a lot of stuff, fail to defeat evil, evil comes to power, then you have to take it down? I ask this because it's not really so different from what happens in OoT.

Exactly what I was going to state. I heard that the recent King Kong game had a similar problem where even if you win... you lose.These are generally very poor ways to write games and even worse if you're only doing it to advance the story. I recall reading an article by Warren Spector a while back where he stated that "forced failure" scenarios are one of the worst things that you can do in a game. You can make it nearly impossible to win, a 99% chance of failure, but you have to allow the player the possi

I don't think Link exists enough to die. Like Mario, he's really more an avatar of the player than a character, and his death is just a metahpor for the player failing. When Link dies, the screen goes black, because there's no game without us and Link is us.
I always assumed that what they were hinting at in Wind Waker was that the Link from Ocarina of Time never returned to Hyrule after Majora's Mask.

Ok, so this is slightly unrelated...but wouldn't it be awesome if you got to play this epic 100+ hour long Zelda with a party, and turn-based combat? I know alot of the fanboys will call it sacrelige, but with FF12 announced as a real-time combat game, who knows? Anyway...here's a little mock up [flickr.com] a made a few weeks ago;)